owen.e.cook at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 08:19:37 GMT 2010
On 18 November 2010 02:55, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
>> “Our theory fits the evidence better than the theory that -eð and -ev were
>> operative and that somehow the -eθ in guironeth and other words... erm....
>> Well, no, I don't think I've heard an explanation.”
> That doesn’t make Lhuyds records of Cornish-while-it-was-still-spoken that
> have <dh> in this position go away. This question, in all fairness, cannot
> be answered. And insisting on orthographic reflection of a theory is an
> attempt at making this theory de facto true, while it simply remains a
> possibility – nothing more.
There actually was an alternative theory bruited about -- the in pausa
line suggested, as I think Dan said, by Jon. I have to say I'm finding
both theories problematic, as there are going to be unexplained edge
cases either way (we have to either force pauses into the sentence
every time there's a <th>, or imagine Lhuyd suddenly forgot that he
was recording Cornish rather than Welsh every time there's a <dh>).
Unconvinced as I am either way, I would certainly prefer to default to
the MSS and use <th>. But Dan's right that writing <dh> gives
partisans of both [ð] and [θ] the chance to pronounce it their way as
they wish. And here the difference in the briefs of KS and the SWF is
apparent: by their own standards, <th> is absolutely right for KS,
<dh> for the SWF.
On a not totally unrelated note, I would really like to see a return
to the use of final <f> for /v/, final <ff> for /f/, which I thought
was one of the most elegant features of an earlier incarnation of KS.
More information about the Spellyans